The cold line splitting Europe

Page Tools

Bertolt Brecht once suggested that totalitarian oppression
amounted to the people losing the trust of their government.

The playwright went on in the same satirical vein to wonder
whether it might "be simpler if the government simply dissolved the
people and elected another".

It seems the same thought occurred to Viktor Yanukovich, the
Ukrainian Prime Minister elected president of the former Soviet
republic on Sunday in a run-off ballot characterised by massive
fraud.

The result confirms the hegemonic rule of Mr Yanukovich's
sponsor - the Russian President, Vladimir Putin - and brings
Ukraine to the brink of civil war. It also emphasises the potential
for resurrection of an East-West cold war, the last manifestation
of which crumbled with the Berlin Wall 15 years ago.

History, however, tells us that governments that refuse to
accede to the will of their people are doomed. Examples are
plentiful but we need look no further than a year ago, when Eduard
Shevardnadze, a former Soviet foreign minister and Georgian
president, fell to the bloodless "revolution of roses" after
refusing to acknowledge electoral defeat.

In the meantime, however, the pain is real and the stakes high.
Mr Yanukovich has brought tens of thousands of protesters onto the
streets of the capital, Kiev, with his artificial victory - it was
reported that in one area he received 104 per cent of the available
vote - and the manipulated defeat of his nemesis, the pro-market,
pro-Western Viktor Yushchenko. There is also the threat of a
national strike. By its actions - including Mr Putin's direct
campaigning for Mr Yanukovich and the financing of his campaign -
Russia has shown a cold line still separates Europe.

The divide is not so much left versus right or economic ideology
but geopolitical. Mr Putin wants an economic and political union
built around Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. If that means
suppression of popular will, so be it. Into the bargain, Mr Putin
has begun a blue with the United States (and most of the West)
which refuses to accept the election result and threatens to
withhold financial assistance to Ukraine. Just when the world needs
open and co-operative dialogue to deal with terrorism and to
promote peace through mutual economic benefit, a new and dangerous
fissure breaks in old territory. Indeed, the Ukraine vote split the
country according to geography. The Russian-speaking industrialised
eastern half fell in behind Mr Yanukovich while Kiev and the more
Europeanised western half heavily backed Mr Yushchenko. That
enhances the risk of violent conflict between the two.

The situation is not necessarily hopeless. Mr Yanukovich says he
does not want a "fictitious victory" and Mr Yushchenko is clear
that violence is not his preferred course. Russian, Western
European and American leaderships have previously demonstrated at
least some capacity for understanding that none of their interests
are served by reinstalling barriers to co-operation. The greater
hope, however, probably rests with the Ukrainians themselves.
Having tasted at least a variation of political freedom, their
appetites for bigger servings will not easily be suppressed. That
makes them a lot harder to push around.

Papering over asbestos danger

It is hard to overstate the dangers posed by asbestos products.
Even so, it does seem unnecessary, if not alarmist, to demand that
every house that is sold have a certificate stating whether it
contains asbestos. No certificate, no sale. That's a lot of
paperwork given the 118,032 residential properties sold in NSW in
the past financial year. There should be no such impost on buyers
and sellers without good reason.

The latest champion of so-called asbestos safety certificates is
the state MP for Liverpool, Paul Lynch. He is echoing similar calls
from the Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia and the NSW
branch of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union. Mr Lynch says
the certificates, to be issued by accredited inspectors, would
identify the presence and condition of asbestos in a dwelling. Such
certificates would be required before councils approved a
development application and, importantly, before a sale. The Labor
caucus is backing Mr Lynch's proposal, so it could be law by next
year.

The potential hazard posed by asbestos is great. In 1987, the
year manufacture of asbestos building materials ceased, Sydney had
1.25 million dwellings and 90 per cent were thought to contain
asbestos. Presumably, most are still standing. However, the
asbestos - usually as sheeting or roofing - is not likely to pose a
danger if it is not disturbed. That is why requiring inspection
certificates for development approvals is good sense, while making
them a condition of sale is not. Just because a house is sold does
not mean it will be renovated. And, most importantly, lots of
houses are renovated without being sold. In short, sales are an
unreliable guide to where danger may arise.

Certainly, make asbestos checks a condition of approvals for all
demolition, renovation or building. Such a requirement needs to be
supported by beefed-up council and WorkCover inspections to make
sure that work is authorised and carried out with appropriate
safeguards. That still leaves the problem of householders who
undertake DIY work that does not require council approval or, even
if it does, goes ahead without it. A public education campaign is
the best way to alert them to the dangers of asbestos, a point that
has been made strongly by the Local Government Association of NSW.
Adding another certificate to the conveyancing process, however,
would be of little help.